Sanctuary cities complain about ‘onslaught’ of illegal migrants

[Hardcore troubadour 15,479]

29 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Some illegals are certainly being exploited. The solution, of course, is to legalize them. 

Then we lose the benefit of their cheap labor. So how is this good for us again? Higher taxes, reduction of services and now  the busboy you talked about before has to get paid better and benefits? You really thought the situation through, haven’t you? 

[Horseman 2,469]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Then we lose the benefit of their cheap labor. So how is this good for us again? Higher taxes, reduction of services and now  the busboy you talked about before has to get paid better and benefits? You really thought the situation through, haven’t you? 

We need to get on to raising that minimum wage too.

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Then we lose the benefit of their cheap labor. So how is this good for us again? Higher taxes, reduction of services and now  the busboy you talked about before has to get paid better and benefits? You really thought the situation through, haven’t you? 

At the same time we legalize we do away with minimum wage for certain industries. It’s a bad idea anyhow. 

[KSB2424 3,148]

This is the REAL Misinformation.  Just completely lying.  
 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,479]

Biden won’t  see a mess. They cleaned it up. Dog and pony show. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,479]

 Biden has made the cartels in Mexico richer than ever. 

[BuckSwope 654]

13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 Biden has made the cartels in Mexico richer than ever. 

The cartels are going to get theirs, probably no matter what we do.   I saw reports about how Stay in Mexico allowed them to charge more and prey on those makeshift communities, also increasing their wealth and power.   Yes, these polcies will also be worked for their benefit too.  

[BuckSwope 654]

18 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

This is the REAL Misinformation.  Just completely lying.  
 

 

My god, do you guys get info anywhere else?    

Typical Twitter - short clip of a video that cuts off what she may or may not have claimed what specifically she was talking about about what the "mess" was.  

[KSB2424 3,148]

14 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

My god, do you guys get info anywhere else?    

Typical Twitter - short clip of a video that cuts off what she may or may not have claimed what specifically she was talking about about what the "mess" was.  

What a dope this guy is.    

The presser and quote is everywhere on the news.  The tweet was simply calling out the complete lie.  
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11607989/Karine-Jean-Pierre-says-Republicans-border-worse-Biden-inherited-mess-Trump.html

[BuckSwope 654]

55 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

What a dope this guy is.    

The presser and quote is everywhere on the news.  The tweet was simply calling out the complete lie.  
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11607989/Karine-Jean-Pierre-says-Republicans-border-worse-Biden-inherited-mess-Trump.html

So the "lie" is solely just because of the crossing numbers, is that your position and the position of the Tweet?    Just because they were low that means it couldn't have been a mess or there weren't negative ramifications of those policies (like the cartels being able to charge more and get more $ because of it).   It's funny when you guys constantly quote those numbers, but not the lower number of other administrations or the big numbers before that year under the same administration which were the highest in decades.   I wonder why that is if you are all about facts and truth?  

Yes, it was a mess then and it's a mess now.  

ETA:    and of course your follow up source is that junk site.   Keep fighting the good fight - the Democrats are the cause of all our problems!! 

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

OK been thinking about this a lot. Here is my proposal. This is a genuine attempt at compromise: 

1.We give the Republicans whatever they want at the border: more agents, a wall, whatever. The only limitation is that we can’t shut down the border, and we can’t slow down legal trade. But other than those, whatever they want. 
 

2. We process all legitimate refugee applications. We’ll have to increase spending to do so. Applicants must remain south of the border while they’re waiting. 

3. We work with agriculture to create a temporary worker situation if possible, at lower than minimum wage. 
 

4. Five years after we have secured the border (as best we can) we offer a path to legalization for those here illegally. Three conditions: they cannot have committed a felony. They have to pay a $5000 fine for the crime of coming here illegally. And they can NEVER vote during their lifetime. 
 

I know lots of kinks would have to be worked out. But that’s my compromise. Curious to see if some of the more open minded here (on either side of this issue) would be willing to entertain it. 

[Cloaca du jour 2,150]

18 hours ago, Horseman said:

We need to get on to raising that minimum wage too.

Jesus....this again.

97 % of mcdonalds are franchises...the franchise owners pay the employees, not corporate.  Average franchise owner makes 150k a year.  

https://www.mashed.com/178309/how-much-mcdonalds-franchise-owners-really-make-per-year/

Who gets hurt when you arbitrarily raise min wage??  The small business owner.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,118]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK been thinking about this a lot. Here is my proposal. This is a genuine attempt at compromise: 

1.We give the Republicans whatever they want at the border: more agents, a wall, whatever. The only limitation is that we can’t shut down the border, and we can’t slow down legal trade. But other than those, whatever they want. 
 

2. We process all legitimate refugee applications. We’ll have to increase spending to do so. Applicants must remain south of the border while they’re waiting. 

3. We work with agriculture to create a temporary worker situation if possible, at lower than minimum wage. 
 

4. Five years after we have secured the border (as best we can) we offer a path to legalization for those here illegally. Three conditions: they cannot have committed a felony. They have to pay a $5000 fine for the crime of coming here illegally. And they can NEVER vote during their lifetime. 
 

I know lots of kinks would have to be worked out. But that’s my compromise. Curious to see if some of the more open minded here (on either side of this issue) would be willing to entertain it. 

I might be on board with this.

Any path to citizenship means they have to wait in line behind the people who have already applied to be here legally and are waiting.  No line skippers.

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I might be on board with this.

Any path to citizenship means they have to wait in line behind the people who have already applied to be here legally and are waiting.  No line skippers.

Well that’s just it. They never get citizenship. Legal status yes. But citizenship never. 

[Strike 5,565]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK been thinking about this a lot. Here is my proposal. This is a genuine attempt at compromise: 

1.We give the Republicans whatever they want at the border: more agents, a wall, whatever. The only limitation is that we can’t shut down the border, and we can’t slow down legal trade. But other than those, whatever they want. 
 

2. We process all legitimate refugee applications. We’ll have to increase spending to do so. Applicants must remain south of the border while they’re waiting. 

3. We work with agriculture to create a temporary worker situation if possible, at lower than minimum wage. 
 

4. Five years after we have secured the border (as best we can) we offer a path to legalization for those here illegally. Three conditions: they cannot have committed a felony. They have to pay a $5000 fine for the crime of coming here illegally. And they can NEVER vote during their lifetime. 
 

I know lots of kinks would have to be worked out. But that’s my compromise. Curious to see if some of the more open minded here (on either side of this issue) would be willing to entertain it. 

Add in that we start going after employers who hire illegals, and increase your #4 to 10 years, and we may have the framework for a deal.  With the following caveats:

- 1 is done BEFORE anything, including 3.  Americans deserve a secure border. 

- It currently sometimes takes years to process and rule on asylum/refugee applications.  I don't want you complaining about that when these people have to stay out of our country for that time frame. 

 

[Mike Hunt 283]

Black communities in Chicago protesting against Lightfoot for putting migrants into their hoods. They don`t want them.

[craftsman 1,045]

24 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:

Black communities in Chicago protesting against Lightfoot for putting migrants into their hoods. They don`t want them.

Yet they keep voting democrat.

[craftsman 1,045]

American citizens go into the US capital, where they should be welcomed with open arms and they go to solitary confinement for an un known unsettled amount of time, but foreigners come into this country ILLEGALLY, and we should be thinking of ways to make them welcome.

Great idea. 

[RLLD 4,239]

On 1/5/2023 at 11:19 AM, Mike Hunt said:

With all the illegal aliens pouring across the border where are they supposed to go?

I believe the strategy was to have them perhaps vote Democrat and eliminate states where the conservative voice is more prevalent, so sending them to NYC is sorta self-defeating....

[Mike Hunt 283]

6 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK been thinking about this a lot. Here is my proposal. This is a genuine attempt at compromise: 

1.We give the Republicans whatever they want at the border: more agents, a wall, whatever. The only limitation is that we can’t shut down the border, and we can’t slow down legal trade. But other than those, whatever they want. 
 

2. We process all legitimate refugee applications. We’ll have to increase spending to do so. Applicants must remain south of the border while they’re waiting. 

3. We work with agriculture to create a temporary worker situation if possible, at lower than minimum wage. 
 

4. Five years after we have secured the border (as best we can) we offer a path to legalization for those here illegally. Three conditions: they cannot have committed a felony. They have to pay a $5000 fine for the crime of coming here illegally. And they can NEVER vote during their lifetime. 
 

I know lots of kinks would have to be worked out. But that’s my compromise. Curious to see if some of the more open minded here (on either side of this issue) would be willing to entertain it. 

 

This is bizarre.  This should not be a partisan issue. Most of the people I work with and know are Dems.  They all want a secure border, majority of the USA regardless of party wants a secure border.  Not sure why the Dems in office don`t take a stand on this too.  

Not only are the border towns getting overwhelmed, but it is in the interest of national security to have secure borders.

I entered Canada last year and was grilled at the border with questions on why I was entering and how long was I staying.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,118]

11 hours ago, Mike Hunt said:

 

This is bizarre.  This should not be a partisan issue. Most of the people I work with and know are Dems.  They all want a secure border, majority of the USA regardless of party wants a secure border.  Not sure why the Dems in office don`t take a stand on this too.  

Not only are the border towns getting overwhelmed, but it is in the interest of national security to have secure borders.

I entered Canada last year and was grilled at the border with questions on why I was entering and how long was I staying.

Me too.  In fact, they had me park my car and come in to talk to a border agent who questioned me on EVERYTHING.  Probably lasted 15-20 minutes.

Do that here at the southern border and the American liberals lose their sh#t and scream RACISSSS!!!  EVERY motherf#cking country in the world doesn't allow people to come in unabated and illegally.  Why the f@ck do American liberals think it's okay for them to do that but not us?

[BuckSwope 654]

The last 2 post make it seem like you guys think that these things also aren't done at our POEs.  I'm sure its the no questions asked, free for all you describe, ES.   

I get you hate liberals, but imo now you are throwing border patrol under the bus and accusing them of not stopping prople and doing their jobs.  Weird stance.  

I get the concerns of the other illegal crossings and agree, but let's at least pump the brakes with the hyperbole just a tad.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,479]

4 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

The last 2 post make it seem like you guys think that these things also aren't done at our POEs.  I'm sure its the no questions asked, free for all you describe, ES.   

I get you hate liberals, but imo now you are throwing border patrol under the bus and accusing them of not stopping prople and doing their jobs.  Weird stance.  

I get the concerns of the other illegal crossings and agree, but let's at least pump the brakes with the hyperbole just a tad.  

So, when they turn people back at the border, what do those people do? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

21 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK been thinking about this a lot. Here is my proposal. This is a genuine attempt at compromise: 

1.We give the Republicans whatever they want at the border: more agents, a wall, whatever. The only limitation is that we can’t shut down the border, and we can’t slow down legal trade. But other than those, whatever they want. 
 

2. We process all legitimate refugee applications. We’ll have to increase spending to do so. Applicants must remain south of the border while they’re waiting. 

3. We work with agriculture to create a temporary worker situation if possible, at lower than minimum wage. 
 

4. Five years after we have secured the border (as best we can) we offer a path to legalization for those here illegally. Three conditions: they cannot have committed a felony. They have to pay a $5000 fine for the crime of coming here illegally. And they can NEVER vote during their lifetime. 
 

I know lots of kinks would have to be worked out. But that’s my compromise. Curious to see if some of the more open minded here (on either side of this issue) would be willing to entertain it. 

Decent start. However there are no legitimate refugees or asylum seekers 

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

7 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Decent start. However there are no legitimate refugees or asylum seekers 

None? This is an absurd assertion. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,479]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

None? This is an absurd assertion. 

He’s right. You can’t pass thorough other countries to get to the one you want to seek asylum from.   You didn’t know that? 

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He’s right. You can’t pass thorough other countries to get to the one you want to seek asylum from.   You didn’t know that? 

That makes no sense. 
 

My grandparents were refugees from the Communists in Hungary (after being survivors of the Holocaust.) They passed through several countries, sometimes at night, risking death, to make it to the United States embassy in Vienna and got refugee status. Are you telling me they weren’t actually refugees? What the ? 

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

How about the Vietnamese who came here after the fall of Saigon? One family I know walked through Cambodia, Laos and Thailand before coming to the USA. Refugees or not? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

17 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

None? This is an absurd assertion. 

 

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

That makes no sense. 
 

My grandparents were refugees from the Communists in Hungary (after being survivors of the Holocaust.) They passed through several countries, sometimes at night, risking death, to make it to the United States embassy in Vienna and got refugee status. Are you telling me they weren’t actually refugees? What the ? 

we are talking about the Mexican border right now, so again NONE

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,479]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

That makes no sense. 
 

My grandparents were refugees from the Communists in Hungary (after being survivors of the Holocaust.) They passed through several countries, sometimes at night, risking death, to make it to the United States embassy in Vienna and got refugee status. Are you telling me they weren’t actually refugees? What the ? 

Things change. 

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Things change. 

How have they changed? 

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

7 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

 

we are talking about the Mexican border right now, so again NONE

 

Hmm. The facts seem to disagree with you: 

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/refugees-asylees

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

@The Real timschochet

taking your no 4 further

this is what I have thought for a long time

everyone who is here illegally, has 6 months to check in.  Every 3 months they must report to "insert govt office here" and show they are working, contributing and paying taxes.  They pay a higher tax rate, until they have accumulated 25,000 in tax revenue generated, and then once paid they are placed on a list.  We have two lists one, is legal immigration, the other is the new immigration of necessary workers.  We pull 2 from list A and 1 from list B, back and forth.  Your spot on your list is generated as soon as you pay off your debt (you can pay it off sooner, or rather than paying coyotes, report to a border agency)

25,000 x 30 mil (estimated illegals) = 750 Billion, pays for the wall and border security, until its spent

if someone doesn't report to get on this list and is caught they are immediately deported and permanently banned from the country

doesn't cost us a dime, gives alot of good people a chance to be here legally and fills our farm workers

as far as farm owners, they could have a lot easier choice selecting workers knowing you can contact a govt agency for workers

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Hmm. The facts seem to disagree with you: 

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/refugees-asylees

yes our current administration literally counts people from Venezuela as refugees and asylum seekers, THEY ARE NOT

wanting a better life and escaping socialism does not count as refugee or asylum definition.  Also if we were counting it as Asylum the closest safe country is considered Mexico

haven't you heard the BJ Queen VP refer to "climate refugees" gimme a break

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

@The Real timschochet

taking your no 4 further

this is what I have thought for a long time

everyone who is here illegally, has 6 months to check in.  Every 3 months they must report to "insert govt office here" and show they are working, contributing and paying taxes.  They pay a higher tax rate, until they have accumulated 25,000 in tax revenue generated, and then once paid they are placed on a list.  We have two lists one, is legal immigration, the other is the new immigration of necessary workers.  We pull 2 from list A and 1 from list B, back and forth.  Your spot on your list is generated as soon as you pay off your debt (you can pay it off sooner, or rather than paying coyotes, report to a border agency)

25,000 x 30 mil (estimated illegals) = 750 Billion, pays for the wall and border security, until its spent

if someone doesn't report to get on this list and is caught they are immediately deported and permanently banned from the country

doesn't cost us a dime, gives alot of good people a chance to be here legally and fills our farm workers

as far as farm owners, they could have a lot easier choice selecting workers knowing you can contact a govt agency for workers

 

I’m not opposed to every aspect of this. Like my plan it has kinks which can be worked out. But I don’t find your position, here, to be unreasonable. 
 

It seems to me that if both sides on this issue can get past rhetoric and emotional responses (I’ve been as guilty of this as anyone) we can work together to find real solutions. Maybe I’m naive, but I truly believe that most of us begin with goodwill and the best of intentions. 

. 

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

yes our current administration literally counts people from Venezuela as refugees and asylum seekers, THEY ARE NOT

wanting a better life and escaping socialism does not count as refugee or asylum definition.  Also if we were counting it as Asylum the closest safe country is considered Mexico

haven't you heard the BJ Queen VP refer to "climate refugees" gimme a break

I don’t agree with your definitions. I think the administration has it right. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

In 2021, the leading countries of nationality for individuals admitted as refugees were Democratic Republic of the Congo (43 percent), Syria (11 percent), Afghanistan (7.6 percent), Ukraine (7.0 percent), and Burma (6.7 percent) (Table 3). These countries made up 75 percent of total refugee admissions in 2021. Since the inception of the refugee program, the nationalities of refugees admitted to the United States have changed as U.S. policies evolved and new conflicts around the world arose. Over the last 10 years, the United States has admitted just under half a million refugees (482,278 people) from around the world. Of these, 19 percent have been from Burma, 17 percent from Iraq, 15 percent from Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 10 percent each from Bhutan and Somalia (Figure 3). Table 3. Refugee Arrivals by Country of Nationality: Fiscal Years 2019 to 2021 (Ranked by 2021 country of nationality) Country of nationality 2019 2020 2021 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total ..................................................................... 29,916 100.0 11,840 100.0 11,454 100.0 Congo, Democratic Republic ................................................... 12,875 43.0 2,863 24.2 4,876 42.6 Syria ....................................................................... 560 1.9 486 4.1 1,255 11.0 Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,197 4.0 603 5.1 874 7.6 Ukraine..................................................................... 4,432 14.8 1,935 16.3 802 7.0 Burma ..................................................................... 4,928 16.5 2,112 17.8 769 6.7 Sudan...................................................................... 376 1.3 258 2.2 510 4.5 Iraq........................................................................ 462 1.5 541 4.6 500 4.4 El Salvador.................................................................. 311 1.0 362 3.1 200 1.7 Somalia .................................................................... 230 0.8 149 1.3 196 1.7 Eritrea ..................................................................... 1,750 5.8 475 4.0 185 1.6 All other countries, including unknown ........................................... 2,795 9.3 2,056 17.4 1,287 11.2 Source: OIS analysis of DOS data.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t agree with your definitions. I think the administration has it right. 

you think there should be "climate refugees" and Venezuelans and Hondurans allowed to claim asylum?  Thats for war time situations.  Its very definition

[Fireballer 2,642]

20 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

That makes no sense. 
 

My grandparents were refugees from the Communists in Hungary (after being survivors of the Holocaust.) They passed through several countries, sometimes at night, risking death, to make it to the United States embassy in Vienna and got refugee status. Are you telling me they weren’t actually refugees? What the ? 

What prevented them from stopping in any of those countries before reaching Vienna?

[The Real timschochet 6,811]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

you think there should be "climate refugees" and Venezuelans and Hondurans allowed to claim asylum?  Thats for war time situations.  Its very definition

I absolutely believe that there are climate refugees (there’s going to be a whole lot more) and that Venezuelans should be allows to claim asylum. Venezuela is a communist dictatorship not much different from the ones in Eastern Europe that my grandparents and millions of others escaped from. 

I know less about the specifics of Honduras, though I suspect I would be sympathetic to those from there who seek refugee or asylum status. I begin with the assumption that all of these people are in desperate straits and are coming here seeking freedom. My sympathies are almost always with them.